Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

As I've mentioned more than once, loads of phenotypically white people have some significant native ancestry, especially here in Oklahoma.

My younger sister's husband is white. Her kids are white. His parents are clearly Native American. I have no idea what % of their ancestry is Native American, but all the stereotypical phenotypes certainly came to the surface in them, particularly his mother. My brother-in-laws sister on the other hand looks a lot like their mother.

Yeah. IMO, the type of person that has a real problem with her claiming native american ancestry at some point in the past, in a minor way, is not the type of person that was going to vote for her to begin with. Those are the type of people that are just looking for reasons to dislike her.

ETA: This sort of thing is not a one way street. People tend to take minor issues they have with their opponents and blow them out of proportion, while everyone else doesn't really care. The bigger question, is what else is used to go after her. I'm not super familiar with Warren, but so far all I've really heard used as a criticism of her is this native american thing. That gives me the impression that there's not much else to attack her on.

Of course this is a complete guess, but I think many people voted for Trump over Hillary purely on basis of PR...
Tough no-nonsense antiestablishmentarian versus PC corporatist robot snake.

Unfortunately, optics matter at least as much as arguments.
And the mockery Warren will face, and the backlash against the inevitable accusations of racism against those calling her Pocahontas will affect her poll numbers.

Republicans like to bring up Warren's Ancestry as a way to use racist, slurs while trying to claim they aren't racist.

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

Of course this is a complete guess, but I think many people voted for Trump over Hillary purely on basis of PR...
Tough no-nonsense antiestablishmentarian versus PC corporatist robot snake.

Unfortunately, optics matter at least as much as arguments.
And the mockery Warren will face, and the backlash against the inevitable accusations of racism against those calling her Pocahontas will affect her poll numbers.

And as we've seen, a significant chunk of the voter base gets more annoyed at being called racist than at actual racism.

To be fair, being called a racist when you don't think of yourself as one is insulting, especially if you're actually not a racist. Of course, speaking out against racism would help one make a case for the latter.

To be fair, being called a racist when you don't think of yourself as one is insulting, especially if you're actually not a racist. Of course, speaking out against racism would help one make a case for the latter.

Trump's demagoguery doesn't exploit just racism and fear of diversity; it exploits the resentment some feel that minorities are getting some special, undeserved treatment, which they see as "reverse racism." That's why it's so important for them to lie about Warren using her ancestry to receive such favoritism.

Trump's demagoguery doesn't exploit just racism and fear of diversity; it exploits the resentment some feel that minorities are getting some special, undeserved treatment, which they see as "reverse racism." That's why it's so important for them to lie about Warren using her ancestry to receive such favoritism.

I'm just pointing out that getting miffed at being called racist doesn't indicate whether the accusation is true.

Here's the thing, though: did she really think she had indian ancestry? If so, where's the stupid game?

She can really think she has indian ancestry, and still use it cynically to play stupid games.

And there is evidence she doesn't really think she has that ancestry, or at least doesn't take the idea very seriously. At one point she claimed that she claimed the ancestry as a way to network with Native American interest groups, but Native American interest groups say she never got involved with them. That suggests a certain cynicism, and a lack of serious interest in her ethnic heritage.

So yeah, putting it on her Harvard application does kinda look cynical and unserious. Doesn't do any harm on the application. Looks good on Harvard's faculty roster. And after a while, she stopped doing even that much. Probably to avoid exactly this kind of silly controversy as her career carried her further into the public eye, and because the ethnic identity didn't actually matter much to her anyway.

I'm just pointing out that getting miffed at being called racist doesn't indicate whether the accusation is true.

Yes, I'm agreeing; I'm saying that indeed, many of them feel like they are victims of racism because minorities are getting an unfair advantage over them. The "beauty" of Trump's demagoguery is that it's vague enough that you can interpret most of it any way you want, as long as you feel you're being wronged.

She can really think she has indian ancestry, and still use it cynically to play stupid games.

And there is evidence she doesn't really think she has that ancestry, or at least doesn't take the idea very seriously. At one point she claimed that she claimed the ancestry as a way to network with Native American interest groups, but Native American interest groups say she never got involved with them. That suggests a certain cynicism, and a lack of serious interest in her ethnic heritage.

So yeah, putting it on her Harvard application does kinda look cynical and unserious. Doesn't do any harm on the application. Looks good on Harvard's faculty roster. And after a while, she stopped doing even that much. Probably to avoid exactly this kind of silly controversy as her career carried her further into the public eye, and because the ethnic identity didn't actually matter much to her anyway.

Having read the article, I found no claim that Warren "plagiarized" any of the recipes.

Yes, I'm agreeing; I'm saying that indeed, many of them feel like they are victims of racism because minorities are getting an unfair advantage over them. The "beauty" of Trump's demagoguery is that it's vague enough that you can interpret most of it any way you want, as long as you feel you're being wronged.

Well, they may have a point that perhaps too much focus is being put on minorities, at the expense of putting effort and money on other problems and groups and individuals, even to the point of dismissing these other problems, but by and large, yeah, the pushback is unfounded.

You guys know that it's okay to be both European American and Native American, yeah?

I see nothing wrong with what she did, either. As has been mentioned here, DNA tests do not confirm what ancestry you don't have, only some of what you do have. My full biological sister's DNA results showed 1-2% Middle Eastern heritage; mine showed 0%.

But the plagiarism isn't the important part (really, none of this is very important). The important part is that she submitted a recipe for crab with tomato mayonnaise to a Cherokee cookbook. This suggests a deeply unserious view of her Native American "heritage". Even if she did sincerely believe she had Cherokee ancestry, it's pretty obvious she's never really cared much about it.

Which is why I said earlier that diversity hiring and admissions in academia is in a stupid place right now. Presumably the purpose of a diversity hire is to bring in diverse viewpoints which will strengthen your organization.

But what diverse viewpoint did Warren actually bring to Harvard? According to Harvard, they didn't ask during the hiring process, and they didn't follow up after hiring her either. And if they had asked, what would have been the result? When her cousin asked, for the cookbook, Warren's diverse "Cherokee" viewpoint turned out to be a mainstream upper class white viewpoint, ironically derived from appropriation of Central and South American foods.

When Harvard listed Warren as a Native American on their staff roster, it looked good for them on paper. But in practice, what they really got was another privileged white woman, and not a "diverse" addition to the team at all. And according to Harvard, the question of whether this was a desirable outcome in diversity hiring never came up during the hiring process. Like I said, diversity in academia is in a stupid place. Harvard and Warren played a stupid game as a result, and Warren got a stupid nickname for a prize.

But the plagiarism isn't the important part (really, none of this is very important). The important part is that she submitted a recipe for crab with tomato mayonnaise to a Cherokee cookbook. This suggests a deeply unserious view of her Native American "heritage". Even if she did sincerely believe she had Cherokee ancestry, it's pretty obvious she's never really cared much about it.

Which is why I said earlier that diversity hiring and admissions in academia is in a stupid place right now. Presumably the purpose of a diversity hire is to bring in diverse viewpoints which will strengthen your organization.

But what diverse viewpoint did Warren actually bring to Harvard? According to Harvard, they didn't ask during the hiring process, and they didn't follow up after hiring her either. And if they had asked, what would have been the result? When her cousin asked, for the cookbook, Warren's diverse "Cherokee" viewpoint turned out to be a mainstream upper class white viewpoint, ironically derived from appropriation of Central and South American foods.

When Harvard listed Warren as a Native American on their staff roster, it looked good for them on paper. But in practice, what they really got was another privileged white woman, and not a "diverse" addition to the team at all. And according to Harvard, the question of whether this was a desirable outcome in diversity hiring never came up during the hiring process. Like I said, diversity in academia is in a stupid place. Harvard and Warren played a stupid game as a result, and Warren got a stupid nickname for a prize.

Thanks for the link. I agree that it's really unimportant that she used the base recipe from another source (and then added five of her own ingredients to make it her own recipe). Nevertheless, she should have given credit to Franey for the base recipe.

The rest of your comment I disagree with. What Harvard did or didn't do with Warren's info is not her fault. And you are trying to blame Warren for the stupid nickname when that rests totally on Trump's shoulders...or more accurately on his big, bullying, nasty mouth. If it hadn't been "Pocahontas", he'd have found something else derogatory to call her. It's what he does.

The important part is that she submitted a recipe for crab with tomato mayonnaise to a Cherokee cookbook. This suggests a deeply unserious view of her Native American "heritage". Even if she did sincerely believe she had Cherokee ancestry, it's pretty obvious she's never really cared much about it.

The accusation against the Cherokee cookbook is that it appropriated too freely from European culture?

ETA: Personally, I would’ve given Liz Warren the following advice with respect to her contribution to any given anthology.

Originally Posted by theprestige

The right thing to do is write your own story, and if it happens to contain elements inspired by this or that other thing, so be it.

You guys know that it's okay to be both European American and Native American, yeah?

Yeah.

So. What does it mean to be "Native American", when applying for a job with an organization that's looking to make their workforce more diverse? Does it mean "effectively the same thing as European American"?

I see nothing wrong with what she did, either. As has been mentioned here, DNA tests do not confirm what ancestry you don't have, only some of what you do have. My full biological sister's DNA results showed 1-2% Middle Eastern heritage; mine showed 0%.

Do you think it would be right for Harvard to consider your sister, if they were looking for a diversity hire with Middle Eastern heritage? Do you think it would be right for your sister to claim such heritage on her Harvard job application?

Just the part where she takes the job away another candidate with an actual diverse Middle Eastern viewpoint seems pretty wrong to me.

We all know that technically correct is the best kind of correct but all this discussion of genetic correctness misses the point: Elizabeth Warren doesn't actually bring the benefits of a diverse (Native American) viewpoint to her job, and she knows it. That makes what she did wrong.

The rest of your comment I disagree with. What Harvard did or didn't do with Warren's info is not her fault. And you are trying to blame Warren for the stupid nickname when that rests totally on Trump's shoulders...or more accurately on his big, bullying, nasty mouth. If it hadn't been "Pocahontas", he'd have found something else derogatory to call her. It's what he does.

Both Warren and Harvard played their parts in a bit of diversity theater. The point here is that it is in fact theater, and that Warren was in fact playing a part.

Do you think it would be right for Harvard to consider your sister, if they were looking for a diversity hire with Middle Eastern heritage? Do you think it would be right for your sister to claim such heritage on her Harvard job application?

Just the part where she takes the job away another candidate with an actual diverse Middle Eastern viewpoint seems pretty wrong to me.

With 1%-2% Middle Eastern DNA? Of course not. But Harvard has explicitly stated that they did not consider her ancestry when they hired her.

Originally Posted by theprestige

We all know that technically correct is the best kind of correct but all this discussion of genetic correctness misses the point: Elizabeth Warren doesn't actually bring the benefits of a diverse (Native American) viewpoint to her job, and she knows it. That makes what she did wrong.

The accusation against the Cherokee cookbook is that it appropriated too freely from European culture?

I made no accusation against the cookbook itself, though I could have. My accusation is that Warren's contributions specifically represent a European appropriation of South American Native culture.

Again, none of this is very important. But consider: Two of her recipes call for tomatoes. These fruits were originally native to South America. They had worked their way north as far as Mesoamerica by the time the Spanish arrived in the New World. The Spanish took the tomato back to Europe, and later Europeans brought it to North America. Where... the Cherokee?... put it in their traditional crab mayonnaise?... and handed it down from generation to generation until it landed in Elizabeth Warren's hereditary recipe book?

There is a rather amusing through-line of European cultural appropriation in that narrative.

Quote:

ETA: Personally, I would’ve given Liz Warren the following advice with respect to her contribution to any given anthology.

There are multiple quotes from multiple people stating that they did not consider this when hiring her.

I understand that's what they are saying. What I don't understand is why they did not consider this, given the stated desire for diversity in colleges and universities. I can understand if they are trying to say they would have hired her even if she had no Native American blood. That makes sense. And maybe you make the argument that diversity wasn't as big deal back then.

Two of her recipes call for tomatoes. These fruits were originally native to South America. They had worked their way north as far as Mesoamerica by the time the Spanish arrived in the New World. The Spanish took the tomato back to Europe, and later Europeans brought it to North America. Where... the Cherokee?... put it in their traditional crab mayonnaise?... and handed it down from generation to generation until it landed in Elizabeth Warren's hereditary recipe book?

You maintain that the cookbook in question claims to be a collection composed exclusively of traditional recipes based on indigenous domesticated species? Fascinating.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.